GUILTY UK - Helen Bailey, 51, Royston, 11 April 2016 #3

[pinklilies]

Yes, it previously sounded as though IS and John Bailey had joint POA but in fact only IS did, with John Bailey merely his stand in if for some reason he couldn't act. This is powerful evidence of IS' motive - and yes pinklilies, it is truly chilling.

Well this shows how much I know. I wrongly presumed there had to be two people as named PoA's and one cannot make decisions without the other. That is what I have always believed so this is news to me. It certainly makes more sense to have two and I would continue to suggest someone has two.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Alyce]

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/helen-bailey-murder-trial-week-12531416

I don't understand this at all.

If he was the "primary beneficiary" that usually means he is the residuary legatee, which means he gets everything that hasn't been specifically left to other people or charities. Normally an executor is named (which is often one or more of the beneficiaries) and they wind up the estate and distribute the assets. They don't have the right to decide whether named beneficiaries get their legacies or not! What trustee are they talking about?

I agree.
The reporter (the court one, not Cambridge News ) is mixing up the Will with the Life Insurance policy, set up to cover the IT bill ( in the event of their being one, pre marriage )
The list Helen added to the LI policy sounds like a statement of wishes, to cover IS.

 

[mbmc]

Whilst I believe there is definitely a financial motive I think he was aiming for POA but something went wrong on the 11th April. All this evidence of inheritance would only benefit him after about 7 years.

So the defence could argue that this was not a motive!

I have read up about missing persons finances and there is nothing anyone can do to change anything without the missing persons authorisation in this time, standing orders etc, hence his changing of the standing order, because being joint account he would be able to use it, but at some point the bank accounts could run dry and then he would become responsible for any outgoings.

So was he in for the long game? Or did his plans indeed go wrong? He clearly did not expect Helen to be found.

So this is where I believe whatever may have been his plan, it all went wrong.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Cherwell]

I'm afraid it's all got rather garbled now, Alyce.

 

[ZaZara]

IMHO anything relating to HB's will does not come into action until after her death.

Initially she was reported MISSING. In that case the POA is far more important than the will, as it offers IS ample opportunities to deal with her assets.

Remember that he never intended to have her found.

 

[Squamous]

I should think the jury are eating their lunch with glazed expressions after everything they've had to take in this morning!

 

[ColourPurple]

IMHO anything relating to HB's will does not come into action until after her death.

Initially she was reported MISSING. In that case the POA is far more important than the will, as it offers IS ample opportunities to deal with her assets.

Remember that he never intended to have her found.

Yup he get everything he wants with POA. He could have sold off everything she owned long before the 7 year wait to have Helen officially declared dead. What a shame that he didn't realise that he wouldn't actually get POA while she was missing.

 

[snoopydog]

All the more evidence pointing to IS being a total idiot imo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ColourPurple]

Whilst I believe there is definitely a financial motive I think he was aiming for POA but something went wrong on the 11th April. All this evidence of inheritance would only benefit him after about 7 years.

So the defence could argue that this was not a motive!

I have read up about missing persons finances and there is nothing anyone can do to change anything without the missing persons authorisation in this time, standing orders etc, hence his changing of the standing order, because being joint account he would be able to use it, but at some point the bank accounts could run dry and then he would become responsible for any outgoings.

So was he in for the long game? Or did his plans indeed go wrong? He clearly did not expect Helen to be found.

So this is where I believe whatever may have been his plan, it all went wrong.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think his big mistake was assuming that he would still get POA if she was missing.

 

[Squamous]

I think he was playing the long game. Even without the POA he would be living mortgage free with his own
£1900 a month and the £4000 going from Helen's account to the joint account. I imagine he could pass seven years quite nicely like that.

The possibility of POA made him very greedy I think, and that's part of what tripped him up.

 

[Cherwell]

Yup he get everything he wants with POA. He could have sold off everything she owned long before the 7 year wait to have Helen officially declared dead. What a shame that he didn't realise that he wouldn't actually get POA while she was missing.

Is it wrong that I ROFL at that :laughcry:

 

[snoopydog]

I think he was playing the long game. Even without the POA he would be living mortgage free with his own
£1900 a month and the £4000 going from Helen's account to the joint account. I imagine he could pass seven years quite nicely like that.

The possibility of POA made him very greedy I think, and that's part of what tripped him up.

But POA surely doesn't mean you're ok to go on a spending spree. You'd think he'd have googled all this stuff to check it out first


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DollyDiamond]

IMHO anything relating to HB's will does not come into action until after her death.

Initially she was reported MISSING. In that case the POA is far more important than the will, as it offers IS ample opportunities to deal with her assets.

You're right, the POA was crucial, the will a secondary consideration. I think many of us struggle to believe IS honestly thought Helen's body would never be found, but all the evidence points to that being his hope and belief. Hell, he even took a 2 week holiday abroad knowing it was there in the marital home! In any of these situations, the missing/deceased woman's partner is ALWAYS the prime suspect - was IS unaware of this? He doesn't sound at all bright to me, quite the opposite. But I agree with other posters, though he clearly had a long term plan to kill her, the execution of it on April 11th was bungled which suggests something forced his hand.

 

[Squamous]

Really early on he asked the police officer if he was "still" a suspect and she said he was a key witness rather than suspect. I don't know if he just took that at face value though!

 

[DollyDiamond]

But POA surely doesn't mean you're ok to go on a spending spree. You'd think he'd have googled all this stuff to check it out first


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is surprising he didn't seem to understand the limitations of POA and was taken aback when the solicitor handling the sale of her flat up north rebuffed his repeated attempts to move the transaction forward, citing his POA. I feel he would have timed Helen's murder after the sale of the flat if he could but something forced his hand. I think he is bound to have done any number of incriminating Google searches on topics covering the financial side and also more damning subjects involving dead bodies, sleeping pills and cess pits. This explains the wiping of files, disappearance of his phone etc.

 

[ZaZara]

Yup he get everything he wants with POA. He could have sold off everything she owned long before the 7 year wait to have Helen officially declared dead. What a shame that he didn't realise that he wouldn't actually get POA while she was missing.

My head is spinning :spinner: :spinner: :spinner:

What I want to stress is that he did not want her found. Meaning that we have to look for the ways in which he would allegedly benefit from the situation while she was missing. IMHO he was keen on selling the other house, so he must have had a plan of sorts. We haven't heard from the person who wanted to buy that house, have we? They would have wanted the sale to go through, I suppose.

The will and everything that surrounds it would not come into focus until much later, perhaps even 7 years.

 

[DollyDiamond]

All the more evidence pointing to IS being a total idiot imo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Absolutely! He has committed a huge crime that will - please God - put him away for the rest of his life. But intellectually, he is no master criminal! His biggest downfall was the arrogance of believing he was cleverer than the police. This makes me think he must have previously got away with something major, and it gave him the feeling he was invincible.

 

[Interested Bystander]

It is surprising he didn't seem to understand the limitations of POA and was taken aback when the solicitor handling the sale of her flat up north rebuffed his repeated attempts to move the transaction forward, citing his POA. I feel he would have timed Helen's murder after the sale of the flat if he could but something forced his hand. I think he is bound to have done any number of incriminating Google searches on topics covering the financial side and also more damning subjects involving dead bodies, sleeping pills and cess pits. This explains the wiping of files, disappearance of his phone etc.

From what we have heard so far the flat has not been mentioned, just the Royston and Broadstairs houses. Have I missed something?

 

[Cherwell]

From what we have heard so far the flat has not been mentioned, just the Royston and Broadstairs houses. Have I missed something?

Helen was selling it, so there would have been no mention of it in the will.

 

[JudgeJudi]

I'm sure both helen and IS knew her requests in that interim will would be followed. I think she was going to change this will and make a more permanent one and he killed her before she could do it.

I find it odd she wouldn't leave something to the sinfields ....even just a token amount. I reckon she hadn't decided what she wanted them to have yet and left it to IS thinking it would only be like that short term then he kills her.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interim wills are legally binding and are executed and witnessed just the same as a formal will. Once Helen had made up her mind about any bequests she wished to make, e.g. to her brother, John's children, Ian's children etc., a formal will would have been drawn up and executed. Until she'd made up her mind however, she knew that IS would be provided for if something happened to her.

Her estate was worth a sizeable amount of money and I doubt it was an "interim" will in the true sense of the word. However, her solicitor knew that it was going to be altered once Helen had made her final decision regarding the beneficiaries.

The difference between executor and trustee:

https://www.simplifywills.co.uk/wills/will-trust/difference-between-executor-and-trustee